The All Time Greatest Random Mass Shooting Thread

I did raise my kids not to run around firing handguns. Didn’t mean one of them still had a penchant for trouble in his teen years.

Same as my parents. Didn’t stop me from having a penchant for trouble in my teen years.

I’d go so far as to say the only reason I’m still alive is because of the color of my skin.

Still the argument goes on.

Really, if a white legal gun owner was surrendering with their firearm what chance did they have to comply at that point? You are supposed to be allowed to put your hands up and surrender without being shot. Even if it is your 134 year old kid in the middle of the night. The kid never had a chance to surrender. He was shot immediately without a chance.

If we are going to have legal gun ownership in this country, thew cops have to give people a chance to surrender and be arrested. Otherwise it should be open season on anyone who carries. You have a gun, so the cops can blow you away because you are a danger to their lives. They should be blowing away white and brown people.

This should be part of having the NRA. If you are shooting gun owners that fast because they have a gun then the NRA should be stepping in to protect the rights of gun owners to not eat bullets when surrendering to the police.

Since this is a valid thing for the police to do to a person with a gun who was surrendering, then we need to ban guns entirely so anyone with one is a deadly criminal worthy of being blown away within seconds because of a twitchy cop.

I am still wondering how the cops managed to arrest neckbeard and Roof without shooting them.

MI wasn't a cop, but maybe it's like the Army - we have similar training in the army but it's for familiarization only - in my MOS we aren't tested on it like weapons qualification or a PT test. Yes there is some overlap between military and police when it comes to shoot/don't shoot and whatnot because as you know the military isn't just fighting enemy combatants, it's about working with the local civilians too. I've had quite a bit of training and real world shit during my career.

That said even if a cop/soldier trains, trains, and trains some more they can still make a mistake. Thus my feelings on not putting the cops to the test in the first place. Keeping your young ass in bed instead of running the streets works nearly every time.

That's your opinion, but sorry there's no way to quantify the validity of your statement. I see too many white people in The Jail Report so the color of their skin doesn't seem to help them out of a jam.

I can tell you why they didn't arrest Roof. I tried to explain this to Shirogayne and surprise surprise it was an exercise in futility. But here it goes:
When Dylan roof went all mass shooter the cops did not know if he was acting alone or if he was part of a coordinated, organized violent attack. For al they know Roof's shootings were the tip of the iceberg.
Thus not only did they not shoot him, they didn't arrest him immediately, and here is why: they were hoping he could spill the beans and maybe (even inadvertently) give them some information - some names maybe - that could save some lives. So they gave him a meal and tried to coax some information out of him. Because once the cops say "you are under arrest" and read him his Miranda rights and he says "I want to see a lawyer" it's game over on getting any information out of him. He doesn't have to say shit - he's even warned against saying shit as part of the Miranda rights. So they wanted him to just keep talking as long as possible to get all the information out of him they could right then, right there in case there were more suspects involved. Turns out there wasn't, but it was still a smart move because there could have been so why not use this tactic?

What if the 13 year old with a gun was selling drugs and could have given them who he got drugs from? What if he had a gun dealer who he could have fingered?

Like always your excuse is shit.

Keep up the racism.

That doesn't answer my question. If a police trainee shot an unarmed kid with his hands in the air in a training exercise, would the trainer consider that okay, or would that be considered a boo-boo?

Right back at'cha slick. I was just trying to explain the situation but if you want to keep hammering that "RACISM!" low hanging fruit that's your choice. Stay ignorant, I don't really care.

Again, I'm not a cop. Maybe Elwood will weigh in here.

Again, if you don't like being referred to as racist then stop being racist. Even this excuse is racist because your reasoning for not shooting Roof and chinbeard is the same reason we can apply to not shooting this kid. The only difference is skincolor in your example. So you are racist.

To go back to the Zimmerman point. If zimmerman had shot a white kid in that neighborhood you would have been telling us to hang the spick. The only difference is he killed a black kid and that makes your racist needledick hard.

this is the way of white racist america and why Tucker Carlson is wrong. White people will never be replaced because we just make more. Someday when hispanic people have lost their accent and ability to speak spanish because they are second or third generation americans they will become white people. Just like the Italians, Irish, and even the friggen germans. My grandmother was from Nazi Germany and white people did not want to call her a white american because of her thick german accent. No one questions her daughter being white even though she was born in Germany and spoke german through the age of five. Her accent is more NY Italian from where she grew up, and she ended up being a WOP in american schools. Now no one questions italian whiteness.

You are full of shit OF. Your white purity is false. Most white supremacists, aka you and your friends, have all sorts of mixed DNA. You do not even deserve to be so racist because you are not pure white. You are willing to give anyone the white card as long as they kill a black person. It is pathetic and sad. You cannot even live up to your own standards so just stop.

In March 2020, the police seized a shotgun from Mr. Hole after his mother raised concerns about his mental state, records show. But, Chief Randal Taylor said, the fact that Mr. Hole was legally able to make the more recent gun purchases indicated that — despite his mother’s warning and the police seizure of a gun — the authorities had not deemed him subject to Indiana’s so-called red flag law, which bars people from possessing a firearm if they are found by a judge to present a dangerous risk.


FedEx Gunman Bought 2 Rifles After Police Seized His Shotgun, Chief Says

Interesting stat? Is it true?

https://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2021/04/cnns-pamela-brown-corners-gop-rep-gun

No, the real question, you heinous fucking bullshitters, is why aren't those states with weaker gun laws overrun with gun violence like D.C. and Washington?

No, the question is, why is people who lawfully use guns want to protect people who unlawfully use guns? Why fight gun laws that will prevent crimes committed with guns.

And do not reply if your reply is anything along the lines about guns being inanimate objects. Because that’s a moronic argument and derails actual discussion.

No, the real question is why you're peddling bullshit.

Pretty clear that when you look at gun mortalities and gun violence on a per capita basis, you're completely and utterly full of shit. As usual.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

It's not trying to protect people who unlawfully use guns. It's realizing that not all gun laws will prevent crimes committed with guns. If they did, there wouldn't be a single school shooting in the U.S because those are all "gun free" zones.

And that’s the point. There are many types of gun crimes. One law will not prevent all gun crimes. Therefore, there needs to be multiple laws.

But that doesn’t answer my question. Why would a law abiding citizen oppose a law design to prevent unlawfulness?

Then be more specific. Which law are you talking about?

Because the effect is not confined to the guilty parties.

Because there is no guarantee of that, whereas there is a guarantee that innocent people will be impacted.

Uhm. Because states with weaker gun laws are mostly rural. And the problems in rural areas require different laws than those in urban areas. There would be fewer crimes in urban areas if asshats in rural areas understood that and quit blocking legislation that would prevent it.

Why is that? You're almost there.

No.

What kinds of gun laws are you talking about? I don't think any law abiding gun owners want guns to fall into criminal's hands. On the other hand, those same law abiding gun owners don't want to be denied the ability to purchase and own firearms themselves.

Are you suggesting that people who live in rural areas are inherently more law abiding that people who live in urban areas? I know you aren’t suggesting the difference is in the color of a persons skin.

So..., a law abiding citizen purchases a gun lawfully and goes home and kills his wife. A law preventing people with a history of violence (just because he hasn’t been arrested, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a history) from purchasing a gun is a hindrance to you?

I know you are not suggesting your convenience is more important than a woman’s life.

I was asking for clarification. When you referenced, "people who unlawfully use guns", I thought you were talking about people with criminal records. I see now you're talking about something a little more nuanced. I won't write off red flag laws, but there would have to be some form of due process and an appeal process. Just basing it on someone claiming someone else shouldn't own a gun on their own word isn't good enough. What do you mean by, "a history of violence" without any arrests? Like criminal complaints that either couldn't be prosecuted due to lack of evidence or because the accuser recanted, etc?

Yes, there are many nuances of gun control laws. The problem is, no one is willing to discuss them and hammer out a viable solution. One side wants a free for all and the other side wants to ban completely. And the oligarchy just wants us to keep fighting each other. So no solution is what happens.

People keep dying.

People keep bitching.

And people keep sticking their head in the sand.

I’m willing to negotiate and attempt to find a solution. Who else is?

I've been pretty clear that I'm a gun owner who is open to discussing new gun control laws for some time now. Hell, the majority of gun owners are for a Universal Background Check. And if the gun manufacturers are against them, I don't understand why. They don't make any money off of person to person gun sales.

I know you have and appreciate that. There are also people who are against gun ownership on this board willing to discuss. My statement was in general of the American people. It may be naive of me, but I was hoping if this small group of people in this board could come to a consensus, maybe our legislators could too.

I understand the pushback against red flag laws and waiting periods and criminalizing getting your guns stolen, but I don't get the pushback against a UBC. In my view, it's win-win.